COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation Related to Travel Transaction Taxes The Company and certain third-party online travel companies ("OTCs") are currently involved in approximately forty lawsuits, including certified and putative class actions, brought by or against U.S. states, cities and counties over issues involving the payment of travel transaction taxes (e.g., hotel occupancy taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc.). The Company's subsidiaries priceline.com LLC, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC are named in some but not all of these cases. Generally, the complaints allege, among other things, that the OTCs violated each jurisdiction's respective relevant travel transaction tax ordinance with respect to the charge and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each law. The complaints typically seek compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief. In addition, approximately seventy-nine municipalities or counties, and at least eleven states, have initiated audit proceedings (including proceedings initiated by more than forty municipalities in California, which have been inactive for several years), issued proposed tax assessments or started inquiries relating to the payment of travel transaction taxes. Additional state and local jurisdictions are likely to assert that the Company is subject to travel transaction taxes and could seek to collect such taxes, retroactively and/or prospectively. With respect to the principal claims in these matters, the Company believes that the laws at issue do not apply to the services it provides, namely the facilitation of travel reservations, and, therefore, that it does not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed. Rather, the Company believes that the laws at issue generally impose travel transaction taxes on entities that own, operate or control hotels (or similar businesses) or furnish or provide hotel rooms or similar accommodations or other travel services. In addition, in many of these matters, the taxing jurisdictions have asserted claims for "conversion" - essentially, that the Company has collected a tax and wrongfully "pocketed" those tax dollars - a claim that the Company believes is without basis and has vigorously contested. The taxing jurisdictions that are currently involved in litigation and other proceedings with the Company, and that may be involved in future proceedings, have asserted contrary positions and will likely continue to do so. From time to time, the Company has found it expedient to settle, and may in the future agree to settle, claims pending in these matters without conceding that the claims at issue are meritorious or that the claimed taxes are in fact due to be paid. In connection with some of these tax audits and assessments, the Company may be required to pay any assessed taxes, which amounts may be substantial, prior to being allowed to contest the assessments and the applicability of the laws in judicial proceedings. This requirement is commonly referred to as "pay to play" or "pay first." For example, the City and County of San Francisco assessed the Company approximately $3.4 million (an amount that includes interest and penalties) relating to hotel occupancy taxes, which the Company paid in July 2009, and issued a second assessment totaling approximately $2.7 million, which the Company paid in January 2013. Payment of these amounts, if any, is not an admission that the Company believes it is subject to such taxes. In the San Francisco action, for example, the court ruled in February 2013 that the Company and OTCs do not owe transient accommodations tax to the city and ordered the city to refund the amount paid in July 2009; the Company also is seeking a refund of the amount paid in January 2013. San Francisco has appealed the court's ruling. The matter has been stayed while the appeal in another case with the City of San Diego is pending before the California Supreme Court. Litigation is subject to uncertainty and there could be adverse developments in pending or future cases and proceedings. For example, in January 2013, the Tax Appeal Court for the State of Hawaii held that the Company and other OTCs are not liable for the State's transient accommodations tax, but held that the OTCs, including the Company, are liable for the State's general excise tax on the full amount the OTC collects from the customer for a hotel room reservation, without any offset for amounts passed through to the hotel. The Company recorded an accrual for travel transaction taxes (including estimated interest and penalties), with a corresponding charge to cost of revenues, of approximately $16.5 million in December 2012 and approximately $18.7 million in the three months ended March 31, 2013, primarily related to this ruling. During the year ended December 31, 2013 and nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company paid approximately $20.6 million and $1.8 million, respectively, to the State of Hawaii related to this ruling. The Company has filed an appeal now pending before the Hawaii Supreme Court. Other adverse rulings include a decision in September 2012, in which the Superior Court in the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the District and against the OTCs ruling that tax is due on the OTCs' margin and service fees, which the Company is appealing. As a result, the Company increased its accrual for travel transaction taxes (including estimated interest), with a corresponding charge to cost of revenues, by approximately $4.8 million in September 2012 and by approximately $5.6 million in the three months ended March 31, 2013. Also, in July 2013, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, ruled that the Company and the other OTCs are liable for tax and other obligations under the Chicago Hotel Accommodations Tax. In July 2014, the Company resolved all claims in this case through settlement and the claims against the Company were dismissed September 3, 2014. In addition, in October 2009, a jury in a San Antonio class action found that the Company and the other OTCs that are defendants in the lawsuit "control" hotels for purposes of the local hotel occupancy tax ordinances at issue and are, therefore, subject to the requirements of those ordinances. The Company intends to vigorously appeal the trial court's judgment when it becomes final. An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending litigation may encourage the commencement of additional litigation, audit proceedings or other regulatory inquiries and also could result in substantial liabilities for past and/or future bookings, including, among other things, interest, penalties, punitive damages and/or attorney fees and costs. There have been, and will continue to be, substantial ongoing costs, which may include "pay first" payments, associated with defending the Company's position in pending and any future cases or proceedings. An adverse outcome in one or more of these unresolved proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flow in any given operating period. However, the Company believes that even if it were to suffer adverse determinations in the near term in more of the pending proceedings than currently anticipated, given results to date it would not have a material impact on the Company's liquidity because of the Company's available cash. To the extent that any tax authority succeeds in asserting that the Company's services are subject to travel transaction taxes and that the Company has a tax collection responsibility for those taxes, or the Company determines that it has such a responsibility, with respect to future transactions, the Company may collect any such additional tax obligation from its customers, which would have the effect of increasing the cost of travel reservations to its customers and, consequently, could make the Company's travel reservation services less competitive (as compared to the services of other OTCs or travel service providers) and reduce the Company's travel reservation transactions; alternatively, the Company could choose to reduce the compensation for its services. Either action could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and results of operations. In many of the judicial and other proceedings initiated to date, the taxing jurisdictions seek not only historical taxes that are claimed to be owed on the Company's gross profit, but also, among other things, interest, penalties, punitive damages and/or attorney fees and costs. Therefore, any liability associated with travel transaction tax matters is not constrained to the Company's liability for tax owed on its historical gross profit, but may also include, among other things, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees. To date, the majority of the taxing jurisdictions in which the Company facilitates hotel reservations have not asserted that these taxes are due and payable. With respect to taxing jurisdictions that have not initiated proceedings to date, it is possible that they will do so in the future or that they will seek to amend their tax statutes and seek to collect taxes from the Company only on a prospective basis. Accrual for Travel Transaction Taxes As a result of this litigation and other attempts by jurisdictions to levy similar taxes, the Company has established an accrual (including estimated interest and penalties) for the potential resolution of issues related to travel transaction taxes in the amount of approximately $51 million at September 30, 2014 and $55 million at December 31, 2013 (which includes, among other things, amounts related to the litigation in the State of Hawaii, San Antonio, District of Columbia and Chicago). The accrual is based on the Company's estimate of the probable cost of resolving these issues. The Company's legal expenses for these matters are expensed as incurred and are not reflected in the amount accrued. The actual cost may be less or greater, potentially significantly, than the liabilities recorded. An estimate for a reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount accrued cannot be reasonably made. OFT Inquiry and Other Competition Reviews In July 2012, the Office of Fair Trading (the "OFT"), the predecessor competition authority in the United Kingdom to the Competition and Markets Authority ("CMA"), issued a "Statement of Objections" ("SO") to Booking.com, which set out the OFT's preliminary views on why it believed Booking.com and others in the online hotel reservation industry were allegedly in breach of E.U. and U.K. competition law. The SO alleged, among other things, that there were agreements or concerted practices between hotels and Booking.com and between hotels and at least one other OTC that restricted Booking.com's (and the other OTC's) ability to discount hotel room reservations, which the OFT alleged was a form of resale price maintenance. The Company disputes the allegations in the SO. On January 31, 2014, the OFT announced that it had accepted commitments offered by Booking.com, as well as Expedia and Intercontinental Hotel Group, (the "Commitments") to close the investigation on the basis that they address the OFT's competition concerns. The OFT closed its investigation with no finding of infringement or admission of wrongdoing and no imposition of a fine. The Commitments provide, among other things, that hotels will continue to be able to set retail prices for hotel room reservations on all OTC websites, such as Booking.com. Under the Commitments, OTCs, such as Booking.com, have the flexibility to discount a hotel's retail price, but only to members of closed groups, a concept that is defined in the Commitments, who have previously made a reservation through the OTC. The discount may be up to Booking.com's commission. In addition, the Commitments provide that Booking.com will not require rate parity from hotels in relation to discounted rates that are provided by other OTCs or hotels to members of their closed groups, provided the discounted rate is not made public. The Commitments apply to bookings by European Economic Area residents at U.K. hotels. On March 31, 2014, Skyscanner, a meta-search site based in the United Kingdom, filed an appeal in the Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") against the OFT's decision to accept the Commitments. Booking.com intervened in support of the CMA in the CAT. In its decision dated September 26, 2014, the CAT found that the CMA was wrong to reject Skyscanner's arguments about the negative impact of the Commitments on its business and price transparency generally without properly exploring these arguments. The CAT's decision vacates the CMA's Commitments decision and remits the matter to the CMA for reconsideration in accordance with the CAT's ruling. It is uncertain what action the CMA will take in response to the CAT's ruling, which could involve re-opening, closing or suspending the investigation. The CMA did not appeal the CAT's decision. Investigations have also been opened by the national competition authorities in the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Sweden, Ireland, Denmark and Switzerland that focus on Booking.com's rate parity clause in its contracts with accommodation providers in those jurisdictions. Competition related inquiries have also been received from the competition authority in China. The Company is in ongoing discussions with the relevant regulatory authorities regarding their concerns. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of these investigations or how the Company's business may be affected. Possible outcomes include requiring Booking.com to amend or remove its rate parity clause from its contracts with accommodation providers in those jurisdictions and/or the imposition of fines. Lawsuits Alleging Antitrust Violations On August 20, 2012, one complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased hotel room reservations from certain hotels (the "Hotel Defendants") through certain OTC defendants, including the Company. The initial complaint, Turik v. Expedia, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-4365, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleged that the Hotel Defendants and the OTC defendants violated U.S. federal and state laws by entering into a conspiracy to enforce a minimum resale price maintenance scheme pursuant to which putative class members paid inflated prices for hotel room reservations that they purchased through the OTC defendants. Thirty-one other complaints containing similar allegations were filed in a number of federal jurisdictions across the country. Plaintiffs in these actions seek treble damages and injunctive relief. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") consolidated all of the pending cases under 28 U.S.C. §1407 before Judge Boyle in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On May 1, 2013, an amended consolidated complaint was filed. On February 18, 2014, Judge Boyle dismissed the amended consolidated complaint without prejudice. On March 20, 2014, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a proposed Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (the "proposed SCAC"), naming only the OTC defendants as defendants and alleging that the OTC defendants violated U.S. federal and state laws by entering into minimum resale price maintenance agreements with the Hotel Defendants and by conspiring to enforce the terms of those resale price maintenance agreements. On April 3, 2014, the OTC defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the proposed SCAC. On October 27, 2014 the court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the proposed SCAC, and on October 28, 2014 the court issued a final judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. The court's October 27, 2014 decision is appealable. Other The Company intends to defend vigorously against the claims in all of the proceedings described in this Note 13. The Company has accrued for certain legal contingencies where it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Except as disclosed, such amounts accrued are not material to the Company's consolidated balance sheets and provisions recorded have not been material to the Company's consolidated results of operations or cash flows. The Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. From time to time, the Company has been, and expects to continue to be, subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business, including claims of alleged infringement of third party intellectual property rights. Such claims, even if not meritorious, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources, divert management's attention from the Company's business objectives and adversely affect the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Contingent Consideration for Business Acquisitions (see Note 14)

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation Related to Travel Transaction Taxes

The Company and certain third-party online travel companies ("OTCs") are currently involved in approximately forty lawsuits, including certified and putative class actions, brought by or against U.S. states, cities and counties over issues involving the payment of travel transaction taxes (e.g., hotel occupancy taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc.). The Company's subsidiaries priceline.com LLC, Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC are named in some but not all of these cases. Generally, the complaints allege, among other things, that the OTCs violated each jurisdiction's respective relevant travel transaction tax ordinance with respect to the charge and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each law. The complaints typically seek compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief. In addition, approximately seventy-nine municipalities or counties, and at least eleven states, have initiated audit proceedings (including proceedings initiated by more than forty municipalities in California, which have been inactive for several years), issued proposed tax assessments or started inquiries relating to the payment of travel transaction taxes. Additional state and local jurisdictions are likely to assert that the Company is subject to travel transaction taxes and could seek to collect such taxes, retroactively and/or prospectively.

With respect to the principal claims in these matters, the Company believes that the laws at issue do not apply to the services it provides, namely the facilitation of travel reservations, and, therefore, that it does not owe the taxes that are claimed to be owed. Rather, the Company believes that the laws at issue generally impose travel transaction taxes on entities that own, operate or control hotels (or similar businesses) or furnish or provide hotel rooms or similar accommodations or other travel services. In addition, in many of these matters, the taxing jurisdictions have asserted claims for "conversion" - essentially, that the Company has collected a tax and wrongfully "pocketed" those tax dollars - a claim that the Company believes is without basis and has vigorously contested. The taxing jurisdictions that are currently involved in litigation and other proceedings with the Company, and that may be involved in future proceedings, have asserted contrary positions and will likely continue to do so. From time to time, the Company has found it expedient to settle, and may in the future agree to settle, claims pending in these matters without conceding that the claims at issue are meritorious or that the claimed taxes are in fact due to be paid.

In connection with some of these tax audits and assessments, the Company may be required to pay any assessed taxes, which amounts may be substantial, prior to being allowed to contest the assessments and the applicability of the laws in judicial proceedings. This requirement is commonly referred to as "pay to play" or "pay first." For example, the City and County of San Francisco assessed the Company approximately $3.4 million (an amount that includes interest and penalties) relating to hotel occupancy taxes, which the Company paid in July 2009, and issued a second assessment totaling approximately $2.7 million, which the Company paid in January 2013. Payment of these amounts, if any, is not an admission that the Company believes it is subject to such taxes. In the San Francisco action, for example, the court ruled in February 2013 that the Company and OTCs do not owe transient accommodations tax to the city and ordered the city to refund the amount paid in July 2009; the Company also is seeking a refund of the amount paid in January 2013. San Francisco has appealed the court's ruling. The matter has been stayed while the appeal in another case with the City of San Diego is pending before the California Supreme Court.

Litigation is subject to uncertainty and there could be adverse developments in pending or future cases and proceedings. For example, in January 2013, the Tax Appeal Court for the State of Hawaii held that the Company and other OTCs are not liable for the State's transient accommodations tax, but held that the OTCs, including the Company, are liable for the State's general excise tax on the full amount the OTC collects from the customer for a hotel room reservation, without any offset for amounts passed through to the hotel. The Company recorded an accrual for travel transaction taxes (including estimated interest and penalties), with a corresponding charge to cost of revenues, of approximately $16.5 million in December 2012 and approximately $18.7 million in the three months ended March 31, 2013, primarily related to this ruling. During the year ended December 31, 2013 and nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company paid approximately $20.6 million and $1.8 million, respectively, to the State of Hawaii related to this ruling. The Company has filed an appeal now pending before the Hawaii Supreme Court.

Other adverse rulings include a decision in September 2012, in which the Superior Court in the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the District and against the OTCs ruling that tax is due on the OTCs' margin and service fees, which the Company is appealing. As a result, the Company increased its accrual for travel transaction taxes (including estimated interest), with a corresponding charge to cost of revenues, by approximately $4.8 million in September 2012 and by approximately $5.6 million in the three months ended March 31, 2013. Also, in July 2013, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, ruled that the Company and the other OTCs are liable for tax and other obligations under the Chicago Hotel Accommodations Tax. In July 2014, the Company resolved all claims in this case through settlement and the claims against the Company were dismissed September 3, 2014. In addition, in October 2009, a jury in a San Antonio class action found that the Company and the other OTCs that are defendants in the lawsuit "control" hotels for purposes of the local hotel occupancy tax ordinances at issue and are, therefore, subject to the requirements of those ordinances. The Company intends to vigorously appeal the trial court's judgment when it becomes final.

An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending litigation may encourage the commencement of additional litigation, audit proceedings or other regulatory inquiries and also could result in substantial liabilities for past and/or future bookings, including, among other things, interest, penalties, punitive damages and/or attorney fees and costs. There have been, and will continue to be, substantial ongoing costs, which may include "pay first" payments, associated with defending the Company's position in pending and any future cases or proceedings. An adverse outcome in one or more of these unresolved proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flow in any given operating period. However, the Company believes that even if it were to suffer adverse determinations in the near term in more of the pending proceedings than currently anticipated, given results to date it would not have a material impact on the Company's liquidity because of the Company's available cash.

To the extent that any tax authority succeeds in asserting that the Company's services are subject to travel transaction taxes and that the Company has a tax collection responsibility for those taxes, or the Company determines that it has such a responsibility, with respect to future transactions, the Company may collect any such additional tax obligation from its customers, which would have the effect of increasing the cost of travel reservations to its customers and, consequently, could make the Company's travel reservation services less competitive (as compared to the services of other OTCs or travel service providers) and reduce the Company's travel reservation transactions; alternatively, the Company could choose to reduce the compensation for its services. Either action could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and results of operations.

In many of the judicial and other proceedings initiated to date, the taxing jurisdictions seek not only historical taxes that are claimed to be owed on the Company's gross profit, but also, among other things, interest, penalties, punitive damages and/or attorney fees and costs. Therefore, any liability associated with travel transaction tax matters is not constrained to the Company's liability for tax owed on its historical gross profit, but may also include, among other things, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees. To date, the majority of the taxing jurisdictions in which the Company facilitates hotel reservations have not asserted that these taxes are due and payable. With respect to taxing jurisdictions that have not initiated proceedings to date, it is possible that they will do so in the future or that they will seek to amend their tax statutes and seek to collect taxes from the Company only on a prospective basis.

Accrual for Travel Transaction Taxes

As a result of this litigation and other attempts by jurisdictions to levy similar taxes, the Company has established an accrual (including estimated interest and penalties) for the potential resolution of issues related to travel transaction taxes in the amount of approximately $51 million at September 30, 2014 and $55 million at December 31, 2013 (which includes, among other things, amounts related to the litigation in the State of Hawaii, San Antonio, District of Columbia and Chicago). The accrual is based on the Company's estimate of the probable cost of resolving these issues. The Company's legal expenses for these matters are expensed as incurred and are not reflected in the amount accrued. The actual cost may be less or greater, potentially significantly, than the liabilities recorded. An estimate for a reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount accrued cannot be reasonably made.

OFT Inquiry and Other Competition Reviews

In July 2012, the Office of Fair Trading (the "OFT"), the predecessor competition authority in the United Kingdom to the Competition and Markets Authority ("CMA"), issued a "Statement of Objections" ("SO") to Booking.com, which set out the OFT's preliminary views on why it believed Booking.com and others in the online hotel reservation industry were allegedly in breach of E.U. and U.K. competition law. The SO alleged, among other things, that there were agreements or concerted practices between hotels and Booking.com and between hotels and at least one other OTC that restricted Booking.com's (and the other OTC's) ability to discount hotel room reservations, which the OFT alleged was a form of resale price maintenance. The Company disputes the allegations in the SO.

On January 31, 2014, the OFT announced that it had accepted commitments offered by Booking.com, as well as Expedia and Intercontinental Hotel Group, (the "Commitments") to close the investigation on the basis that they address the OFT's competition concerns. The OFT closed its investigation with no finding of infringement or admission of wrongdoing and no imposition of a fine.

The Commitments provide, among other things, that hotels will continue to be able to set retail prices for hotel room reservations on all OTC websites, such as Booking.com. Under the Commitments, OTCs, such as Booking.com, have the flexibility to discount a hotel's retail price, but only to members of closed groups, a concept that is defined in the Commitments, who have previously made a reservation through the OTC. The discount may be up to Booking.com's commission. In addition, the Commitments provide that Booking.com will not require rate parity from hotels in relation to discounted rates that are provided by other OTCs or hotels to members of their closed groups, provided the discounted rate is not made public. The Commitments apply to bookings by European Economic Area residents at U.K. hotels.

On March 31, 2014, Skyscanner, a meta-search site based in the United Kingdom, filed an appeal in the Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") against the OFT's decision to accept the Commitments. Booking.com intervened in support of the CMA in the CAT. In its decision dated September 26, 2014, the CAT found that the CMA was wrong to reject Skyscanner's arguments about the negative impact of the Commitments on its business and price transparency generally without properly exploring these arguments. The CAT's decision vacates the CMA's Commitments decision and remits the matter to the CMA for reconsideration in accordance with the CAT's ruling. It is uncertain what action the CMA will take in response to the CAT's ruling, which could involve re-opening, closing or suspending the investigation. The CMA did not appeal the CAT's decision.

Investigations have also been opened by the national competition authorities in the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Sweden, Ireland, Denmark and Switzerland that focus on Booking.com's rate parity clause in its contracts with accommodation providers in those jurisdictions. Competition related inquiries have also been received from the competition authority in China. The Company is in ongoing discussions with the relevant regulatory authorities regarding their concerns. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of these investigations or how the Company's business may be affected. Possible outcomes include requiring Booking.com to amend or remove its rate parity clause from its contracts with accommodation providers in those jurisdictions and/or the imposition of fines.

Lawsuits Alleging Antitrust Violations

On August 20, 2012, one complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased hotel room reservations from certain hotels (the "Hotel Defendants") through certain OTC defendants, including the Company. The initial complaint, Turik v. Expedia, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-4365, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleged that the Hotel Defendants and the OTC defendants violated U.S. federal and state laws by entering into a conspiracy to enforce a minimum resale price maintenance scheme pursuant to which putative class members paid inflated prices for hotel room reservations that they purchased through the OTC defendants. Thirty-one other complaints containing similar allegations were filed in a number of federal jurisdictions across the country. Plaintiffs in these actions seek treble damages and injunctive relief.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") consolidated all of the pending cases under 28 U.S.C. §1407 before Judge Boyle in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On May 1, 2013, an amended consolidated complaint was filed.

On February 18, 2014, Judge Boyle dismissed the amended consolidated complaint without prejudice. On March 20, 2014, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a proposed Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (the "proposed SCAC"), naming only the OTC defendants as defendants and alleging that the OTC defendants violated U.S. federal and state laws by entering into minimum resale price maintenance agreements with the Hotel Defendants and by conspiring to enforce the terms of those resale price maintenance agreements. On April 3, 2014, the OTC defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the proposed SCAC. On October 27, 2014 the court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the proposed SCAC, and on October 28, 2014 the court issued a final judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. The court's October 27, 2014 decision is appealable.

Other

The Company intends to defend vigorously against the claims in all of the proceedings described in this Note 13. The Company has accrued for certain legal contingencies where it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Except as disclosed, such amounts accrued are not material to the Company's consolidated balance sheets and provisions recorded have not been material to the Company's consolidated results of operations or cash flows. The Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss.

From time to time, the Company has been, and expects to continue to be, subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business, including claims of alleged infringement of third party intellectual property rights. Such claims, even if not meritorious, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources, divert management's attention from the Company's business objectives and adversely affect the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Contingent Consideration for Business Acquisitions (see Note 14)